The Shroud Of Turin

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Celeste, that's exactly what I have been looking for. What have accredited scholars written on this topic?

From Publishers Weekly
The Gospel of Mary of Magdala, a second-century gospel that was discovered in the 19th century and not published until 1955, shows Mary to be the apostle (yes, apostle) to whom Jesus revealed deep theological insights. King, a professor at Harvard Divinity School and author of What Is Gnosticism?, argues that the Gospel prefers inner spiritual knowledge to exterior forms such as the law and that it reveals some of the gender conflicts and spiritual divisions of the early Christian movement. King places translations of two extant fragments of the Gospel of Mary side by side, so readers can see the slight differences that appear in the originals. (Because approximately 10 pages of the Gospel are still lost, scholars believe we only have about half of its original material.) In the brief text, the male apostles are afraid and despondent after Jesus' post-resurrection departure, so Mary tries to cheer them by revealing some of the esoteric teachings that Jesus imparted to her alone. But the teachings cause discord, as Peter and others refuse to believe that Jesus would have given such "strange ideas" to a woman. ("Did he choose her over us?" a petulant Peter asks.) The bulk of King's book takes up various issues raised by the text-questions about the Son of Man, law, women's authority, visionary experiences and the body. This is a serious scholarly study with the apparatus of an academic book, including Coptic facsimiles of the papyrus, and Coptic and Greek phrases sprinkled throughout the text.

I had thought, wrongly, that nobody in academia touched the late apocrypha material accept as very late, Gnostic Apologetics.

[Jonathan H]

I meant, Celesta

[BillyE]

I just wanted to address a few critisisms of my previous post:


The Good Michael:

"Excuse me! Did you see Jesus' wounds? There is no proof that Jesus ever existed,"

I'll leave that one alone. I'll let history decide if Jesus (actually his name was Yeshua. Jesus is the Greek translation of his name) existed.

"and you're talking about corresponding wounds. Perfect anatomy? Define perfect anatomy please."

For that term "perfect anatomy" you have art critics and art historians to thank. It's comes from attempts to put the human form in the center of a circle. Most had their arms too long, or short, legs to long or short, torso too long or short. Da Vinci was the first to succeed with his "Vitruvian Man" sketch. And as for corresponding wounds, had the shroud been a 11-12th century forgery the painter would have almost certainly put the nail wounds in Jesus' palms rather than his wrists. All the art, sculptures, and crucifixes of the time prove this to be true. But on the shroud the nail wounds are through the wrists. Again, it doesn't prove the shroud is genuine. Just more sauce for the goose.


Ally:

"I am not entirely sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that because we have technology today that shows something that couldn't have been shown in the 12th century, Jesus must have made this especially for us here in the 21st? Knowing that the technology would exist?"


It has always been my belief, Ally, you believe there are no such things as co-incidences or accidents, only by design or a result of a flaw in said design. Well, if the 3-D image was by design how did the artist know how to bring the effect into being when 3-D was a concept 700 years away. And if it were a flaw in the design it is a rare occurance indeed when a flaw in the design of a forgery would, even superficially, support the possible authenticity of the object in question.

[Archaic]

In my opinion, the shroud came out of Battlecrease.

You always were a trouble-maker Robert...

Cheers,
Archaic

[Ally]

I had thought, wrongly, that nobody in academia touched the late apocrypha material accept as very late, Gnostic Apologetics.

Just out of curiosity so now, because a historian has written a book on it, you are more willing to accept the idea? Even though the gnostics have been there for decades, there for YOU to read and make up your mind, it requires someone else interpreting it for you and telling you what's valid and what to take from it?

How is that any different than preachers and their Bible?

[Ally]

It has always been my belief, Ally, you believe there are no such things as co-incidences or accidents, only by design or a result of a flaw in said design.

Don't be silly. Of course there are things such as co-incidences and accidents.

Well, if the 3-D image was by design how did the artist know how to bring the effect into being when 3-D was a concept 700 years away.

By accident. He was not attempting to do any such thing but the results of his work, led to what we see as "3D"

And if it were a flaw in the design it is a rare occurance indeed when a flaw in the design of a forgery would, even superficially, support the possible authenticity of the object in question.

It is not a "flaw" in the design. It occurred as the natural result of attempting to make a burial shroud "hoax" and using a 3-D subject, layers and different techniques to simulate what happens when someone bleeds out under a cloth. But of course the biggest thing against the shroud of Turin is exactly how perfect that face is rendered. Cloth does not lie perfectly flat against a face and yet that face in 2d shows as if it was.

But you didn't answer my question. If Jesus was making artifacts with an eye towards modern technology 2000 years down the road, why didn't he time his arrival better, so that millions and millions of people on the planet would not die AFTER he'd arrived, condemned by never having heard of the only path to salvation?

You don't believe in flaws in the design like that do you?

[The Good Michael]

Ally,

It's because it's all being made up as time goes on. That's the plan.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

To Ally,

Wrong way round. It's about being open-minded.

I already hold certain beliefs about the historical Jesus but am open to serious, professional people who have got a new angle on old sources.

Simply because being professional they have written something I can access, as opposed to something which is unpublished and not accessible.

[Ally]

To Ally,

Simply because being professional they have written something I can access, as opposed to something which is unpublished and not accessible.

What do you mean unpublished and not accessible?

http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

[Celesta]

In my opinion, the shroud came out of Battlecrease.

Isn't that where they make the cereal, Robert? Battlecrease, Michigan?


So good to see you here.

[Celesta]

Elaine Pagels wrote about Mary, Thomas, and the Gnostics, but, as I haven't read her books yet, I hesitated to mention her. I did read the Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel Of Mary. While I see some similarities in the teachings, they're also different in tone from the NT. I've never been able to warm up to the Gnostics and have only read one book on them, The Gnostic Gospels by Tobias Churton and that was several years ago.
This sounds rather different than the NT to me, from The Gospel of Mary.

Then Peter said to him, "You have been explaining every topic to us; tell us one other thing. What is the sin of the world?"
The Savior replied, "There is no such thing as sin; rather you yourselves are what produces sin when you act in accordance with the nature of adultery, which is called 'sin.' For this reason, the Good came among you, pursuing (the good) which belongs to every nature. It will set it within its root."
Then he continued. He said, "This is why you get si[c]k and die: because [you love] what de[c]ei[ve]s [you]. [Anyone who] thinks should consider (these matters)!
"[Ma]tter gav[e bi]rth to a passion which has no Image because it derives from what is contrary to nature. A disturbing confusion then occurred in the whole body. That is why I told you, 'Become content at heart, while also remaining discontent and disobedient; indeed become contented and agreeable (only) in the presence of that other Image of nature.' Anyone with two ears capable of hearing should listen!"



The tone of it is a bit more complex than the Gospels, or so it seems to me.

[Jonathan H]

Ally, I'm talking about secondary, not primary sources.

To Celesta,

Thank-you, very interesting.

[Robert]

I'm an agnostic, so I suppose I could be deficient in religious feeling. But, well, we've had the holy foreskin, and the holy grail, and now it's the holy shroud, with for all I know the holy toenail clippings still to come. Doesn't all this interest amount to something bordering on idolatry?

[Suzi]

I'm an agnostic, so I suppose I could be deficient in religious feeling. But, well, we've had the holy foreskin, and the holy grail, and now it's the holy shroud, with for all I know the holy toenail clippings still to come. Doesn't all this interest amount to something bordering on idolatry?

Not to mention the Holy Tuck Box confiscated on that Thursday night by Matron!!!

[Robert]

Suzi, I have the holy tuck box. The loaves have gone stale and the fishes pong a bit, but hey, it's 2000 years.